In the chapter of Tim Keller’s book Counterfeit Gods, Keller argues that money is among the most dangerous idols. This is a sentiment that I’ve agreed with for a long time. Something that often sends waves of potent distasted through me when I see it in the church at large. But, I have always had difficulty articulating the real problem. But I think Keller hits it on the head—or at least comes close.

“It is because greed and avarice are especially hard to see in ourselves.”

Yes. Yes, yes, yes. As Keller rightly points out, everyone seems to agree that the world is a flagrantly greedy place. It’s virtually everywhere we look. But, regardless of its prevalence, virtually no one sees themselves as ‘greedy’. So, the problem spins out of control, but no one can tell.

Keller, later, continues to explain in more detail what’s really going on.

“Once you are able to afford to live in a particular neighborhood, send your children to its schools, and participate in its social life, you will find yourself surrounded by quite a number of people who have more money than you.”

We live with all-things-relative. Greed is less about how much you spend, but the heart you have when you spend it. There’s almost always someone who’s spent more then you have and this leaves us feeling justified in our actions. Whether they are objectively right or not. In effect, it makes our own greed invisible to us.

On a corporate level, greed would seem to be on the elder’s board of many churches. Certainly our new building is bigger than we need it to be, but have you seen the cathedral down the street? Sure, we could have easily gotten by without buying that bus for our church, but at least we didn’t buy a fleet of busses like that church over there! Simply because the church culture in a given geographic area spends money in a certain way doesn’t make it right or okay.

Here in Annapolis, people are very wealthy. Simply because some church members drive $60,000 vehicles, doesn’t mean the pastors are justified in purchasing $40,000 vehicles.

I personally have never felt that I was a greedy person. But, Keller’s analysis of the problem is wrought with logic and demands that I reconsider myself and my heart. Even some basic reflections on myself reveal that there is greed hiding that I justify by the more privileged around me.

I pray that can and will change.

I’ve been reading C.S. Lewis’ space trilogy. I’m on the second book right now, Perelandre. The concept of the trilogy is basically that God created, not only earth, but other worlds as well. He deals and communicates with each of them in unique ways, although always in line with his character.

Today, I was thinking about what we know of the universe, and more existentially, what we know about existence—what we know about knowing things, even. And it occurred to me that it seems borderline insulting, even arrogant, to assume that we would be the end of God’s creation. That he would have retired after creating us.

We believe that God is all powerful. The he is sovereign. That he’s creative. But most importantly, that he’s passionately devoted to bringing glory to his name. Well, what great human artist do you know of that only painted one thing and stopped?

I mean, think about it, God has already created at least once before creating us: angels. Who’s to say there weren’t other beings created before us—maybe in existences other than our own. I don’t know.

But it does seem to me, that if God has the character that we believe he does—that he’s revealed to us—it would more probable that his creative impulses wouldn’t be spent on us. Maybe nowhere in our universe or realm of existence, but it seems likely to me that God would have more than one egg and more than one basket, that he would go on creating and gleaning glory from all of it.

Of course, as to our own interaction with God, this is all pretty inconsequential. If God has continued to create capacities other than our own, I don’t really need to know about it. I may never actually have an answer. But it sure is interesting to consider.

Tim Keller’s, The Reason for God, is one of the best books I’ve read–ever. Maybe it’s because I have a philosophical mind, or maybe it’s because I’m just a sucker for apologetics. Either way, The Reason for God is an absolute winner. Here’s my take on why.

I saw this book on the bookshelf at the store long before I knew anything about Keller, his ministry, or this book. The title perplexed me and kind of annoyed me. I read it like, “The reason that God is”, or “what purpose does God serve us”. But, I interpreted the title wrong. Maybe reading the subtitle would have helped. The title is saying, “The Reason, the logic, the reasonableness of the idea of God”.

The Reason for God is divided into fourteen chapters, in two sections. The first seven chapters deal with the negative side of belief. Basically, making the argument that it’s not unreasonable to believe in God. He lays out the arguments, or “clues” for God without necessarily arguing that anyone should believe. In the second seven chapters, he moves into the positive side of belief. Not only seeing belief in God as reasonable, but belief in the Christian God as a better explanation than any alternative.

The book is written for believers and skeptics alike. Few authors can do this successfully. Usually it hits the mark on one and misses the other, or vice versa. Not so with The Reason for God. Well, I think anyway. Keller writes encouragingly to the believer and sympathetically to the skeptic. In the beginning chapters of the book, he argues that all world views require leaps of faith and encourages understanding and compassion to people who’ve taken different leaps.

Keller has been compared to CS Lewis, and it’s not hard to see why. His literary style is compelling, but easy to read. He has a manner of taking very large, philosophical ideas and makes them manageable and easy to digest. Much like Lewis in Mere Christianity. It’s not an unexpected comparison either–Keller is consistently quoting Lewis (as well as many, many other authors and thinkers).

All in all, The Reason for God will challenge, encourage, enlighten and entertain. I recommend that the curious and the decided alike take the time to read this book. Talk, think, share and then read some more.

Especially in an age like ours, this book should be read by everyone.

The past few days I’ve been reflecting on the idea in Romans 2:14-15:

For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them”

This idea of the work of the Law being written on people’s hearts is very interesting. It’s clear that in a fairly universal sense all cultures tend to agree with some basics tenets of morality. Murdering is bad. Lying is un-virtuous. Stealing is reprehensible. Sex is wrong apart from commitment. Yet many people who agree with these things, and who’s conscience is stricken because of them, do not know of the express commandments from God about them.

What’s the deal with that? Why do human beings seem to universally agree on some very basic moral structure, while the religious and moral institutions vary dramatically?

Well, it seems that this is exactly what Paul has in view when he says that the gentiles are a “law to themselves". There is a God and he is Holy and he has graciously given such a law in the hearts of people–even those who don’t know him. But, I think, there’s something even more astonishing than that.

We all know that God’s law is more demanding than any person can survive. In the heavenly court, no human will be justified on the basis of God’s law. All have sinned and all are guilty. But, if we were to scale back and look at only the requirements of man’s law–the one written on every man’s heart–we would still be guilty. Not only are we unable to keep God’s perfect law, we are unable to keep our conscience clean on our own terms.

Even apart from God’s holy law, a savior is not only necessary, he is imperative to our very lives. Praise the Lord that God had done what he has and that all sins are paid for through the atoning, justifying, propitiating, sanctifying work of Jesus Christ on the Cross.

At this rate, I’m going to be done with Tim Keller’s The Reason for God in no time at all. Reading today, I came across another excellent thought. But this time, I think I’ll share more of his own words.

In this passage from his book, Keller is responding to the notion that no one religion can claim the corner on the truth market. That all religions, while have some truth, don’t have all of it; in other words, all religions are correct. Not just one. He shares an analogy he hears often about three blind men and an elephant.

An elephant approaches three blind men and allows them to touch him. When asked what they elephant looked like, the first blind man, holding the elephant’s tail, said, “it’s long and thin, like a snake.” The next blind man responded, “no, it’s tall and thick, like a tree,” holding the elephant’s leg. The last blind man argued, “no, it’s large and flat,” touching the elephants side.

Keller response to this analogy by revealing it’s inherent problem.

“This illustration backfires on its users. The story is told from the point of view of someone who is not blind. How could you know that each blind man only sees part of the elephant unless you claim to be able to see the whole elephant?

‘There is an appearance of humility in the protestation that the truth is much greater than any one of us can grasp, but if this is used to invalidate all claims to discern the truth it is in fact an arrogant claim to a kind of knowledge which is superior to [all others]… We have to ask: “What is the [absolute] vantage ground from which you claim to be able to relativize all the absolute claims these different scriptures make?’ [Leslie Newbigin – The Gospel in a Pluralists Society]

How could you possibly know that no religion can see the whole truth unless you yourself have the superior, comprehensive knowledge of spiritual reality you just claimed that none of the religions have?”

To claim that no one religion has the corner on truth, is in itself a faith based claim and, in a sense, a religious one. The user of this argument is forced to either submit to the analogy themselves and so invalidate it, or accept the hypocrisy of it.

Very interesting, Tim. Very interesting indeed.